IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v14y1994i4p336-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing and Testing a Multimedia Presentation of a Health-state Description

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Kane Goldstein
  • Ann E. Clarke
  • David Michelson
  • Alan M. Garber
  • Merlynn R. Bergen
  • Leslie A. Lenert

Abstract

Quality-adjustment weights for health states are an essential component of cost-utility anal ysis (CUA). Quality-adjustment weights are obtained by presenting large numbers of subjects with multiattribute descriptions of health states for rating. Comprehending multiattribute health states is a difficult task for most respondents. The authors hypothesized that multimedia (MM) presentation using computers might facilitate this task better than would a paper-based text (Text). To test this hypothesis, they developed closely matched MM and Text descriptions of health states in the first-person narrative style, and developed a method of testing the presentation of a health state. Subjects were randomized to exposure to either MM or Text and subject recall of the health state and recognition of features of the health state were tested. How well defined the preferences of the subjects were after each presentation method was assessed by having the subjects mark on a double-anchored visual-analog scale the "best" and "worst" they believed the quality of life in the health state might be. MM subjects had better recall (11.85 vs 9.44 of a total of 24 meaning units, p = 0.098) and better recognition (4.71 vs 4.22, p = 0.08). The average interval between the "best" and "worst" ratings was shorter for the MM subjects (2.19 cm vs 3.26 cm, p = 0.12). The results suggest that: 1) MM presentation results in better recall and recognition, indicating better transfer of information; 2) MM presentation appears to result in better definition of preferences (a smaller preference interval), suggesting better integration of information into subject preference; and 3) recall and recognition testing of a health-state description can identify material in the description that has an unintended impact on the respondents. Key words: cost-utility analysis; communication medium; quality-adjustment weights; multimedia; health-state de scription. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:336-344)

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Kane Goldstein & Ann E. Clarke & David Michelson & Alan M. Garber & Merlynn R. Bergen & Leslie A. Lenert, 1994. "Developing and Testing a Multimedia Presentation of a Health-state Description," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(4), pages 336-344, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:4:p:336-344
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9401400404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9401400404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sloan, Frank A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Chesson, Harrell W. & Conover, Christopher J. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn, 1998. "Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis1," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 475-497, August.
    2. Leslie A. Lenert & Daniel J. Cher & Mary K. Goldstein & Merlynn R. Bergen & Alan Garber, 1998. "The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-83, January.
    3. Johanna L. Bosch & James K. Hammitt & Milton C. Weinstein & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1998. "Estimating General-population Utilities Using One Binary-gamble Question per Respondent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 381-390, October.
    4. Leslie A. Lenert & Jonathan R. Treadwell, 1999. "Effects on Preferences of Violations of Procedural Invariance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 473-481, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:4:p:336-344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.